Secondary research use of personal medical data: attitudes from patient and population surveys in The Netherlands and Germany.
Journal
European journal of human genetics : EJHG
ISSN: 1476-5438
Titre abrégé: Eur J Hum Genet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9302235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
09
07
2020
accepted:
17
09
2020
revised:
11
09
2020
pubmed:
3
10
2020
medline:
15
1
2022
entrez:
2
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Making routine clinical-care-data available for medical research requires adequate consent to legitimize use and exchange. While, public interest in supporting medical research is increasing, individuals often find it difficult to actively enable researchers to access their data. In addition to broad consent, the idea of (consent-free) data donation has been brought into play as another way to legitimize secondary research use of medial data. However, flanking the implementation of broad consent policies or data donation, the attitude of patients, and the general public toward different aspects of these approaches needs to be assessed. We conducted two empirical studies to this end among Dutch patients (n = 7430) and representative German citizens (n = 1006). Wide acceptance of broad consent was observed among Dutch patients (92.3%), corroborating previous findings among German patients (93.0%). Moreover, 28.8% of the Dutch patients generally approved secondary data-use for non-academic research, 42.3% would make their decision dependent upon the type of institution in question. In the German survey addressing the general population, 78.8% approved data donation without explicit consent as an alternative model of legitimization, the majority of those who approved (96.7%) would allow donated data to be used by universities and public research institutions. This willingness to support contrasted sharply with the fact that only 16.6% would allow access to the data by industry. Our findings thus not only add empirical evidence to the debate about broad consent and data donation, but also suggest that widespread public discussion and education about the role of industry in medical research is necessary in that context.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33005018
doi: 10.1038/s41431-020-00735-3
pii: 10.1038/s41431-020-00735-3
pmc: PMC7940390
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
495-502Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Methods Inf Med. 2018 Jul;57(S 01):e50-e56
pubmed: 30016818
J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep;46(9):629-631
pubmed: 32098907
Genet Med. 2018 Jan;20(1):76-82
pubmed: 28640237
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019 Oct 1;11(3):227-254
pubmed: 33717314
Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15;3:160018
pubmed: 26978244
PLoS Med. 2016 Jan 20;13(1):e1001950
pubmed: 26789528
J Law Med Ethics. 2015 Winter;43(4):673-4
pubmed: 26711408
Eur J Hum Genet. 2019 Jun;27(6):841-847
pubmed: 30683927
Eur J Hum Genet. 2017 Feb;25(3):293-300
pubmed: 28000694
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Oct;25(5):1357-1387
pubmed: 30357557
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018 Apr;23(2):123-133
pubmed: 29653503
J Med Ethics. 2015 May;41(5):404-9
pubmed: 25617016
J Med Ethics. 2022 Jan;48(1):3-13
pubmed: 31719155
Intern Med J. 2018 Jan;48(1):84-87
pubmed: 29314513